December 27, 2011  ECrisis reminds you that nothing is ever honest or accountable coming from Correa’s Ecuador or the mullahs’ Iran, now partnered for the greater glory of hatred, crime and misogyny, also called the previously known as Republic of Ecuador.  And while Rafael Correa continues to abuse one and all with gay abandon, think about- for once in your lazy lives, what you are supporting for it is the end of all that you hold dear.

Ecuador will broadcast- more than it does now- Iran’s media. All the stolen TV and radio and newspapers will pour out the state garbage. More to the point….Ecuador- and all of Latin America will now have the Iranian censoring tricks to control all that you see and hear…for he greater expansion of lies. And if this seems far fetched, do what you should do anyway: stay informed. It is free these days you know which leaves all our ignorant-by-choice- Ecuadoreans looking really pathetic and dumb. Keep up with your world or move to Cuba and live your unhappy, unfree life.  Or do what you should have done for years: be responsible and stay up with your world. And unless you do, you deserve not any support, no public acclaim nor anyone’s attention.

Ecuador has merged with Iran. Ecuador is an Iranian proxy state. Ecuador is squarely, by its own choice, an actor for the Axis of Suppression which is….wait for it….evil in our days.

-Pedro Camargo for ECrisis

 -------------

The Wall Street Journal

 TECHNOLOGY     DECEMBER 27, 2011

.In Skies Over Iran, a Battle for Control of Satellite TV .

 PAUL SONNE And FARNAZ FASSIHI

Shohreh, a 37-year-old Iranian nurse, sat down with her husband and parents one night in September to watch a documentary about Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, scheduled to be shown on the British Broadcasting Corp.'s BBC Persian channel.

But when the Tehran family settled on the couch with a bowl of pistachios and switched on the television, all they saw was scrambled imagery. The satellite signal was being jammed.

Rooftop dishes give Iranians access to satellite TV, but Iran selectively jams signals; here, two men shouted dissent after a disputed 2009 election.

."We were very disappointed that we couldn't see the film," said Shohreh, who declined to let her last name be used.

As uprisings rolled across the Middle East this year, Iran stepped up its jamming of the BBC, Voice of America and other Western networks with Persian-language news channels. The move "is intended to prevent Iranian audiences from seeing foreign broadcasts the Iranian government finds objectionable," five networks protested in a joint statement this month.

While the use of Western technology for Internet censorship by Middle Eastern and North African regimes has gained attention this year, satellite television has also become a potent force in the region and, in Iran, a target of censorship.

Some 45% to 60% of Iranians watch satellite TV, according to estimates from the state media company and an Iranian research center, exceeding the number believed to use the Internet. Iran so far seems to be winning a struggle to filter out unwanted TV content and broadcast its own propaganda: The country jams channels like the BBC on Western satellites even as Iran's state media company broadcasts pro-government news on some of the same satellites, and at times has aired forced confessions of political detainees.

"Iran is having it both ways," said a U.S. State Department official. "While they benefit from the international community's respect for 'freedom of expression' and 'freedom of the airwaves,' they deny that same right to their own citizens, aggressively jamming Persian-language broadcasts from other countries."

.The head of Iran's state media company last year admitted using such tactics, according to Iranian state media reports. "We send jams" to the satellites, the reports quoted the executive as saying in a spring 2010 speech. Requests for comment sent to Iran's United Nations mission went unanswered, as did questions emailed to the public-relations office of the state media company, Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting, or IRIB.

Some non-Iranian news broadcasters find themselves in a cat-and-mouse game with the regime. The BBC, for example, launched its Persian-language channel in 2009 and beamed it from the "Hotbird" satellite of Paris-based Eutelsat Communications SA, which is a satellite that large numbers of rooftop dishes in Iran are pointed at to receive free Persian channels.

After Iran jammed the signal, the BBC reluctantly switched to a different satellite that reached far fewer Iranian homes. Since September, Iran has periodically jammed that signal, too.

Viewers, like broadcasters, often try workarounds. On Sept. 18, the day after the scheduled documentary on the ayatollah was blocked, a surgeon at the hospital where Shohreh works downloaded the show from YouTube and circulated DVD copies, Shohreh said.

Iran's jamming and use of its broadcast company as a tool of censorship raise a question that divides activists, politicians and business people: Should the country be denied access to Western satellites?

Some human-rights activists say yes. Shirin Ebadi, an Iranian lawyer and Nobel Peace Prize winner, calls for refusing access "until the Iranian government learns to respect freedom of expression and freedom of free information," or at least until it stops sabotaging foreign news channels' satellite signals, a practice barred under international conventions Iran has signed. Ms. Ebadi, who now lives in the U.K., contends satellite companies should drop IRIB as a customer.

Others say barring Iranian state channels from European and U.S. satellites would itself amount to censorship. "If the Iranian speech is not advocating terrorism, as a free-speech advocate, I'm reluctant to block it," said Rep. Brad Sherman (D., Calif.), who has helped craft U.S. sanctions on Iran.

Iranian state broadcasters beam channels to 45 countries using at least eight international satellite companies, according to the State Department. IRIB broadcasts not only in Persian but in Arabic—on its Al Alam channel—and in English on its Press TV. Besides Eutelsat, companies it uses include Intelsat SA, Telesat Holdings Inc. and AsiaSat, a Hong Kong-based operator in which General Electric Co. has a stake.

Iran has little reason to jam Intelsat and AsiaSat, which don't carry BBC Persian or other typically targeted channels, and those companies said they weren't aware of their satellites being jammed. Telesat, which also says it isn't aware of being jammed, does carry BBC Persian but the satellite that carries the channel isn't widely watched in Iran. Eutelsat, meanwhile, says it has been targeted repeatedly.

.Intelsat, based in Luxembourg but with main offices in Washington, is able to do business with Iran despite the U.S. embargo because of a license from the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control. Intelsat was once an intergovernmental organization and was obliged to provide service to the group's former members, including Iran, when it changed to a private company a decade ago.

"Satellite operators like Intelsat do not censor the content that is broadcast over their satellites," said Dianne Van Beber, a vice president and spokeswoman. "If a customer is in good standing and in compliance with the terms of our agreement, then they have the right to broadcast their content."

The chief executive of Eutelsat, Michel de Rosen, said, "I get pressure from many governments about many channels. Our permanent answer is: We will not do anything about a channel if we do not get a clear order backed by law."

Eutelsat says it did pull Libyan government channels in April after the European Union barred any technical aid to the Gadhafi regime. Later, North Atlantic Treaty Organization forces bombed the Libyan state satellite-television facility, which NATO said was being used to incite attacks on civilians.

Some activists say a case can be made that Iran is using state-media satellite transmissions to trample dissent. They point to distorted or false IRIB news reports, such as those portraying this year's "Arab Spring" uprisings as Islamic revolutions, and to incidents like one involving Newsweek journalist Maziar Bahari, who was forced to give a false confession in front of state media outlets while jailed in 2009.

The director of the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran, Hadi Ghaemi, called IRIB "an arm of repression." Mr. Bahari, now free, said, "I think the argument of freedom of speech would be valid if the Iranian government was just broadcasting information, but they broadcast forced confessions [and] fabricated propaganda."

A confidential 14-page report from IRIB's research and policy center, reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, documents IRIB's efforts to skew the news. "You are forbidden to broadcast any programs that would cast a doubt in the public's mind about the government," the report said. It encouraged programs to "insist that Iran's nuclear program is for peaceful energy purposes."

Numerous outside broadcasters have sought to tap Iran's TV audience. Besides BBC Persian, satellite channels include MBC Persia and Farsi1, which airs local-language versions of entertainment shows like "Malcolm in the Middle" and which is half-owned by News Corp., publisher of The Wall Street Journal. There are also dozens of Persian-language channels based outside Iran, many run by expatriates.

Iran's response has been to tolerate the more innocuous entertainment channels but sometimes jam foreign networks broadcasting local-language news. The head of the joint venture that oversees Farsi1 said it had experienced interference when its signal was located near BBC Persian or near other news channels, but this subsided after it moved to a different transponder. BBC Persian has been a top target, as has Voice of America.

Iran uses two jamming techniques, according to satellite specialists and broadcasters. "Vertical jamming" sends powerful noise signals directly to the satellite to override a channel's entire feed. "Territorial jamming" involves noise stations set up locally to interfere with reception in specific neighborhoods.

The Iranian parliament's communications committee looked into satellite jamming about eight years ago after citizen complaints of poor reception, said Ali Akbar Mousavi Khoeini, once deputy head of the committee. He said it found a network of jamming systems scattered around big cities operated by the Revolutionary Guard, Iran's elite military unit.

When BBC Persian launched in early 2009, the BBC was already a popular way for Iranians to get news. For 70 years it has had a Persian-language radio station, which is hard to block because it is short-wave; the BBC also has a Persian website, which is blocked in Iran but accessible via circumvention tools. For its TV channel, the BBC rented a frequency on Eutelsat's Hotbird, the most popular satellite in Iran for TV watchers.

For six months, the channel flourished without interference, with varied programming in addition to news, including a popular talk show, "Your Turn," that gives Iranians a chance to share their opinions.

But on the day in June 2009 when Iran held its presidential election, BBC Persian suddenly went off the air.

The BBC set up frequencies on other satellites, but the channel's reach fell dramatically. To receive content from a satellite, viewers must have their dish pointed at the angle of its orbit. To change to signals from a different satellite, they must physically shift their dish or append an extra fixture called an arm, typically requiring a climb to the roof. (Satellite dishes are technically illegal in Iran and occasionally confiscated, but remain widespread.)

The jamming on Hotbird eventually stopped. But in December 2009, when BBC Persian aired a documentary about the death of a cleric who had become a regime critic, it started again.

Because the jamming was causing collateral damage to neighboring channels on Hotbird, the BBC reluctantly agreed to a request from a satellite-space middleman to move to another Eutelsat satellite, called W3A. It is less-watched, and the move initially cut BBC Persian's reach by at least half, the channel's director, Sadeq Saba, estimates.

The BBC persuaded many Iranians to shift their dishes or add an arm to receive W3A. It circulated how-to videos on YouTube. Some people did follow the channel to the other satellite.

 The BBC Persian documentary "The Ayatollah's Seal" was jammed by Iran on Eutelsat's W3A satellite in September, leaving images scrambled and incomprehensible. Video courtesy Lenziran.com, an Iranian affairs website.

.Then during this spring's protests in Cairo's Tahrir Square, Iran started targeting the W3A satellite, too.

Mr. Saba tells of being called to a technical meeting in the imposing limestone building on London's Strand that houses the BBC satellite monitoring center. "It was really like those science-fiction movies," he said. On control-room screens, "you could see the Iranians sending spikes of light to jam the waves." Ultimately, the BBC team undertook technical countermeasures that kept the feed on the less-watched W3A satellite on the air.

There are indications Iran is acquiring more-sophisticated jamming equipment. Russia sold Iran some, according to an official of Russia's Federal Service for Military and Technical Cooperation, who told a Russian state news agency that such a sale wasn't prohibited under United Nations sanctions.

During the documentary about Ayatollah Khamenei on Sept. 17, Iran managed for the first time to jam BBC Persian on the W3A satellite. Today, BBC Persian still wants to restore service on the more popular Hotbird but is continually thwarted by jamming. It has its signal on two other satellites in addition to W3A, but their reach in Iran is even more limited.

In October, the EU called on Tehran "to lift restrictions on communications, including Internet censorship, and put an immediate end to jamming of satellite broadcasting."

Eutelsat says it has filed numerous complaints with a U.N. agency that manages outer-space frequencies, the International Telecommunication Union, an arm of which stated in March that the interference "appeared to be emanating from Iran." Iran said it couldn't find the source of the jamming, according to the chief of the U.N. agency's space-services department, Yvon Henri. The agency urged Iran to keep trying to find it and to "eliminate it as a matter of highest priority."

Mr. Henri says the U.N. agency is limited in what it can do. "It's part of the regulation that we don't have any power other than to try to get everyone together and find a solution that is mutually agreeable," he said. "We certainly do not have any army or anybody to descend anywhere."

_____

READ here from the BBC about Iran’s new TV adventures:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/mundo/noticias/2011/12/111223_video_iran_teheran_television_espanyol_hispantv_jg.shtml

_______

Supposedly ‘pro-Israel’ J Street part of Soros’ radical web: Group promoting ‘peace’ in Middle East tied to Occupy, MoveOn, ACORN, more.
December 26, 2011  Aaron Klein     http://kleinonline.wnd.com/2011/12/26/supposedly-pro-israel-j-street-part-of-soros-radical-web-group-promoting-peace-in-middle-east-tied-to-occupy-moveon-acorn-more/

JERUSALEM – J Street, the supposedly pro-Israel, pro-peace political action committee and lobbyist group, is actually backed by a controversial far-left clearinghouse financed by billionaire George Soros, KleinOnline has learned.

J Street claims to be pro-Israel, yet it has faced mounting criticism for its policies and advocacy that many argue is harmful to the Jewish state.

J Street’s executive director, Jeremy Ben Ami, is himself deeply tied to the controversial group, the Tides Center, which is heavily financed by Soros.

Ben Ami served at a radical-led marketing firm that helps to craft the public relations strategy for Tides grantees, including MoveOn. The firm, Fenton Communications, also has represented Soros himself as well as the billionaire’s Open Society Institute.

Tides documentation reviewed by KleinOnline shows the group provided a $50,000 grant to the “J Street Education Fund” for the fiscal year of 2010. J Street’s main website is listed in association with the Tides grant.  According to tax filings, the J Street Education Fund is a nonprofit arm of J Street.

The fund’s stated mission is to “promote meaningful American leadership to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflicts peacefully and diplomatically through the use of coalition building, mobilizing public opinion online, engaging younger Americans and amplifying the public’s voice.”

It was not immediately clear how much J Street’s educational arm depended on the Tides donation since the nonprofit’s tax filings for 2010 were not made public.  In 2009, however, the J Street Education Fund posted total assets at $573,233.

The discovery that it accepted a donation from the Tides Center serves as yet another connection between J Street and Soros.

J Street previously denied it received significant funds from Soros until the Washington Times reported in September 2010 that J Street had received $245,000 from Soros and his children in 2008, and another $500,000 in subsequent years – altogether, about 7 percent of the $11 million that J Street says it has taken in since its 2008 founding.

In a now removed section of the “Myth and Facts” page of its website, J Street denied the “myth” that Soros “founded and is the primary funder of J Street.”

In what some charged was a misleading statement, J Street claimed about Soros funding: “George Soros did not found J Street. In fact, George Soros very publicly stated his decision not to be engaged in J Street when it was launched – precisely out of fear that his involvement would be used against the organization.”

In a March 2010 interview with Moment magazine, Ben-Ami directly denied Soros funding altogether: “We got tagged as having his support without the benefit of actually getting funded!”

After the Washington Times piece, Ben Ami accepted “responsibility personally for being less than clear about Mr. Soros’ support once he did become a donor,” Ben-Ami said in the statement.

Now KleinOnline’s revelation about Tides Center funding to J Street may open new avenues of concern about the Israel lobby group, including Ben Ami’s personal ties to Tides and its marketing partner, Fenton Communications.

J Street is further connected to tides through Hadar Susskind, vice president and managing director of Tides’ Washington, D.C., office. Prior to joining Tides, Susskind served as vice president of policy and strategy at J Street.

Moveon.org, ACORN Occupy Wall Street

Tides functions as a money tunnel where major leftist donors provide large sums that are channeled to hundreds of radical groups. One prominent Tides donor is Soros.

Tides recently has been closely linked to Occupy since the anti-Wall Street movement’s inception. The Tides-funded Adbusters magazine is reported to have come up with the Occupy Wall Street idea after Arab Spring protests toppled governments in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia. The Adbusters website serves as a central hub for Occupy’s planning.

The Tides-funded Ruckus Society has been providing direct-action training to Occupy protesters as well as official training resources, including manuals, to Occupy training groups. Ruckus, which helped spark the 1999 World Trade Organization riots in Seattle, was also listed as a “friend and partner” of the Occupy Days of Action in October.

Another grantee of Tides is MoveOn.org, which has joined Occupy.

Tides also funds hundreds of other far-left causes. It was a primary financier to the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN, which was implicated in massive voter fraud.

Ben Ami himself is connected to some of these Tides-sponsored radical groups. Until he founded J Street, he served as senior vice-president of Fenton Communications, a marketing outfit that crafts the public relations strategy of Tides grantees and has been closely tied to Occupy, as well.

Fenton Communications helped to craft Moveon.org’s infamous attacks on Gen. David Petraeus.

Fenton has been behind the public relations strategies of a who’s who of far-left causes, organizations and activists, from representing Health Care for America Now to crafting strategy for a litany of anti-war groups. Fenton also has represented Soros himself and the billionaire’s Open Society Institute.

Fenton, which works closely with Tides, first made its name representing communist dictatorships in the 1980s.

Fenton Communications was founded in 1982 by David Fenton, an activist who served as a photographer for Bill Ayers’ domestic Weather Underground terror group.

Davis Fenton used the Tides Center to set up Environmental Media Services in 1994. Tides reportedly originally ran EMS’ daily operations.

David Fenton serves on the board of numerous Tides-funded groups, while his firm represents more than 30 Tides Center grantees.

Fenton Communications came under new scrutiny after KleinOnline published a series of exposés tying it to Occupy Wall Street, including evidence indicating one of Fenton’s senior employees represented the anti-Wall Street march past millionaires’ homes in New York in October.

After KleinOnline’s report, Fenton denied it represented the Occupy movement. Fenton’s Chris Potter denied the firm was working for Occupy, claiming his group was doing a “favor” for a friend in New York by helping with recent publicity.

However, KleinOnline reported last month on Fenton’s further ties to Occupy through Beth Bogart, who has been widely quoted in the news media as helping to run the movement’s press relations department in New York and other cities.

Not mentioned in most media accounts is that Bogart, formerly known as Beth Bogart Fenton, is co-founder of Fenton Communications.

An example of the close public relations relationship between Fenton and Tides, meanwhile, is the Social Venture Network, which was established and operates as a project of the Tides Foundation, while its strategy is represented by Fenton. SVN’s board has included Tides’ founder Drummond Pike as well as Medea Benjamin, co-founder of Code Pink.

Another group, September Eleventh Families For Peaceful Tomorrows, is an anti-war organization founded by individuals who lost loved ones in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The group’s campaign was coordinated by Fenton while the group was funded by Tides.

Also represented by Fenton is the Win Without War group, which was funded by Soros and Tides.

Ben Ami’s former employer, Fenton in 2009 spearheaded a major campaign to end Israel’s naval blockade of the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip. Fenton Communications reportedly developed a communications action plan for an 18-month campaign, known as the Al Fakhoora Project, aimed at delegitimizing Israel’s naval blockade while garnering support for the Hamas-led government and the people of the Gaza strip.

Newsmax last year reported Fenton signed contracts for the project worth more than $390,000 with Sheikha Mozah Bint Nasser Al-Missned, the wife of Qatar’s ruler, as well as a separate foundation she chairs.

J Street’s GOP attack on Israel

In a Washington Post opinion piece last week entitled, “What ‘pro-Israel’ should mean,” Ben Ami attacked Republican lawmakers and presidential candidates for “unqualified support for Israeli government policy and unprecedented backing for Israeli settlement beyond the pre-1967 Green Line.”

Ben Ami urged lawmakers to ensure that Israel “proactively take[s] bold, even risky, steps to establish a state of Palestine based on the pre-1967 lines with land swaps.”

Unnoted by Ben Ami is that Israel already evacuated the Gaza Strip only to have Hamas take control. Ben Ami also failed to note that the Jewish state multiple times offered the Palestinian Authority a state on most of Gaza, the West Bank and eastern sections of Jerusalem with no counter offer from the PA.

At Camp David in 2000, PA Leader Yasser Arafat walked away from talks, instead launching his intifada, or terror war, against Israeli civilians.

Soros himself recently spelled out his formula toward Israel in a Washington Post op-ed concerning the revolutions in the Middle East, which many say have been favoring the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist parties.

In the piece last February, entitled “Why Obama Has to Get Egypt Right,” Soros recognized that if free elections were held in Egypt, “the Brotherhood is bound to emerge as a major political force, though it is far from assured of a majority.”

He stated the U.S. has “much to gain by moving out in front and siding with the public demand for dignity and democracy” in Egypt.

Soros singled out Israel as “the main stumbling block” in paving the way toward transition in the Middle East.

“In reality, Israel has as much to gain from the spread of democracy in the Middle East as the United States has. But Israel is unlikely to recognize its own best interests because the change is too sudden and carries too many risks,” he wrote.

Israeli ambassador: ‘J Street opposes all our policies’

J Street brands itself as pro-Israel. It states on its website it seeks to “promote meaningful American leadership to end the Arab-Israeli and Israeli-Palestinian conflicts peacefully and diplomatically.”

But the group also supports talks with Hamas, a terrorist group whose charter seeks the destruction of Israel. The group opposes sanctions against Iran and is harshly critical of Israel’s anti-terror military offensives.

The Israeli government has been distancing itself from J Street. When its ambassador, Michael Oren, refused to attend the annual J Street dinner in 2010, Israeli embassy spokesman Yoni Peled told the Jerusalem Post his government has some “concern over certain [J Street] policies that could impair Israel’s interests.”

At a December 2009 breakfast, Oren reportedly described J Street as “a unique problem in that it not only opposes one policy of one Israeli government, it opposes all policies of all Israeli governments. It’s significantly out of the mainstream.”

Earlier this month, the Jewish student union at the University of California at Berkeley decided to deny membership to J Street’s collegiate division.

_____

NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE          www.nationalreview.com     

Sunni Sect’s Ruthless Violence against Christians

By Nina Shea     December 26, 2011

Boko Haram, the violent Nigerian Islamist group, whose name means “Western civilization is forbidden,” struck again yesterday in pitiless bombing attacks against Christian worshippers as they celebrated Christmas.

One blast targeted congregants as they left Christmas-morning Mass at the St. Theresa Catholic Church in Madalla, a suburb of Nigeria’s capital, Abuja. The priest said that 35 bodies were recovered and many other people were wounded as the explosion ripped through the church, leaving a crater.

Smaller bombs were detonated near two other churches, including the popular Mountain of Fire and Miracles Church in Jos, Plateau State, where a police guard was killed, and a church in the northeastern area of Gadaka, Yobe State, where no deaths were reported. An estimated total of 40 persons lost their lives in yesterday’s violence.

Coordinated violence targeting Christians has become a hallmark of Boko Haram as it seeks to impose strict sharia in areas that are already governed by varying degrees of sharia. Six churches were targeted and at least 150 people were killed in its bombing attacks over several days in November, and half a dozen bombs went off near churches and in a Jos market on Christmas Eve 2010, killing about 30.

Boko Haram has thus engaged in repeated, demonstrable, and violent intolerance toward Christianity, though it is far from the only source of religious violence in Nigeria — on the tribal and village levels, Christians have also attacked Muslims — or even the only source of Nigerian Muslim violence (for example, on Christmas Day 2009, the Nigerian Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, known as the underwear bomber, attempted to blow up a Northwest Airlines flight headed for Detroit on behalf of al-Qaeda.) Boko Haram’s targeting of Christians was noted by the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom in its annual report  for 2010.

But apparently this pattern had escaped the notice of the New York Times, which, in its otherwise detailed coverage of yesterday’s church violence, concluded that the bombings represented “a new, religion-tinged front” and “another dangerous shift in strategy.” At least the Times has finally seen the light.

In a reprise of the administration’s statement of condolences a year ago when a Syriac Catholic church in Iraq was bombed during Mass, the White House press office failed to make any observation whatsoever about the religious character of yesterday’s violence in Nigeria. Its statement identified neither the victims nor the perpetrators other than to say that they were Nigerian, and omitted any mention of the churches that were the main sites of the bombings. It attributed the violence simply to “terrorist acts,” stating in its entirety: “We condemn this senseless violence and tragic loss of life on Christmas Day. We offer our sincere condolences to the Nigerian people and especially those who lost family and loved ones. We have been in contact with Nigerian officials about what initially appear to be terrorist acts and pledge to assist them in bringing those responsible to justice.”

Nigeria is Africa’s most populated country, a regional power, a significant oil exporter, and an ally. It is critical for both humanitarian and strategic reasons that its society, which is almost evenly split between Muslims and Christians, not enter a period of escalating religious violence. However, it is unlikely that America will be able to contribute constructively if our foreign-policy establishment fails to recognize the goals of radical Sunni Islamist movements there.
 

________